Has anyone looked at ELF 4.1?

[H.J. Lu]

> As I read it, it's a bit different from the OLF proposal.  SCO is
> defining EI_OSABI as indicating whether the file conforms to the
> standard ELF format.  A value of 0 (ELFOSABI_SYSV) indicates that the
> file does conform.  For EI_ABIVERSION, a conforming application must
> use 0.  Our files do conform to the specification (I hope), so it is
> correct for us to use 0 for both.
> 
> However, we could perhaps ask registry@sco.com to define
> ELFOSABI_LINUX, and define that as being the same as the standard, but
> using the Linux API.  Similarly for other free operating systems.
> 

The purpose of EI_OSABI and EI_ABIVERSION is to tag the OS and ABI.
I think we should register ELFOSABI_LINUX and define it as 1. It may
make many things easier for us. Right now, after I upgrade from
glibc 2.0 to 2.1, groff (man) no longer works since the C++ ABI in
glibc is changed.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)